Search results

Free full text: https://www.banglajol.info/index.php/IMCJMS/article/view/45286 Disappointing they didn't use a double-blind design.

Yes, good points. But my basic point was that somebody with ME/CFS could rate as more difficult on average what happened, compared to a healthy person. So one should be sceptical of claims that the people with ME/CFS had dealt with on average more challenging situations in the workplace.

I am not familiar with these questionnaires. But with ME/CFS one can be less well able to deal with stress of lots of types. So it seems possible people with ME/CFS might rate differently the same scenarios compared to a healthy person who might be better able to brush off and/or forget about...

Why would it be ruled out? I don't believe it's a strict exclusion and indeed different forms of dysautonomia seem to be common in the condition

I'm not sure that it has been mentioned in this thread that they did also write to people:

I have a vague recollection that for another one of these patients (one that went to Spain?) it was mentioned that there was a 50% chance that it could lead to a fatality. And then the person did pass away. I'm not sure whether this was an operation that was different in some ways to what other...

2020 IACFS/ME Conference Deadline for Research Abstract Submission/ Professional Workshop Proposals Extended to 2/ 21/ 2020! The DEADLINE for research abstract submission/ professional workshop proposals for the 2020 IACFS/ME Conference has been extended to FEBRUARY 21, 2020! To submit a...

A lot if not most epidemiological research in the UK involved biopsychosocial researchers. The "wrong sort" of epidemiological research can cause problems.

Around 70% of adolescents who satisfied CFS criteria at 6 months after infectious mononucleosis (a.k.a. glandular fever or mono) didn't satisfy them at 2 years. I can't remember if we have similar figures for adults; I think somebody posted ones unofficial figures from the Dubbo study that very...

Leonard Jason did a long-term follow-up of the Chicago adult prevalence study. Diagnoses seem to be more stable than with the CDC study, though I don't remember anyone ever discussing a comparison: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3171164/

This paper is old but would have collated responses in papers published before it was finalised: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7785/a5598c128500213a46969883880c6312ad40.pdf

From: Dr. Marc-Alexander Fluks

From: Dr. Marc-Alexander Fluks

On the point about the prevalence rate possibly being inflated due to bias in who took part: Only 2 of the participants who were diagnosed with ME/CFS had an existing diagnosis of ME/CFS. So, by itself, it doesn't suggest lots of people with an existing diagnosis of ME/CFS decided to take part...

Reeves et al (2007), a CDC study, found a prevalence of 2.54%. However, it used the so-called empiric criteria for CFS (Reeves et al 2005), which are really rubbish.

Another CDC paper: https://bmcneurol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2377-4-6 Sleep assessment in a population-based study of chronic fatigue syndrome Elizabeth R Unger, Rosane Nisenbaum, Harvey Moldofsky, Angela Cesta, Christopher Sammut, Michele Reyes & William C Reeves

https://hqlo.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1477-7525-1-49 https://hqlo.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1477-7525-1-49/tables/5 These are called "temporary" exclusions because these were people who had previously been diagnosed with CFS; they were then followed up for up to three years...

I remember it came out that the CDC used a positive Romberg test as an exclusion. I think like you suggest they may have been too willing to exclude some people who had the symptoms.

I'd like to share this on Facebook. Is that OK? I could post a link to here but think more people would read it if the text was posted. Of course, if you post it yourself there, it would be even better.